> On 28 Apr 2015, at 15:46, Arthur Barstow <art.bars...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/21/15 5:39 AM, Kostiainen, Anssi wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Is there a plan to publish an errata to sync the Web Storage Rec [1] with 
>> the latest? I counted 8 commits cherry picked into the Editor's Draft since 
>> Rec [2].
>> If no errata publication is planned, I'd expect the Rec to clearly indicate 
>> its status.
> Re the priority of this issue, is this mostly a "truth and beauty" 
> process-type request or is this issue actually creating a problem(s)? (If the 
> later, I would appreciate it, if you would please provide some additional 
> context.)

It was creating problems. Our QA was confused which spec was the authoritative 
one, and wrote tests (additional ones, on top of the w-p-t tests) against the 
Rec spec. These tests failed since Blink is compliant with the latest, not the 
Rec. More context at: https://crosswalk-project.org/jira/browse/XWALK-3527

> The main thing blocking the publication of errata is a commitment from 
> someone to actually do the work. I also think Ian's automatic push of commits 
> from the WHATWG version of Web Storage to [2] was stopped a long time ago so 
> there could be additional changes to be considered, and the totality of 
> changes could include normative changes. Did you check for these later 
> changes?

No, I just observed the ED has evolved since the Rec publication. There may be 
additional changes in the LS that haven't been picked up to the ED.

> If you, or anyone else, would like to help with this effort, that would be 
> great. (If it would be helpful, we could create a new webstorage repo under 
> github/w3c/, work on the errata in that repo and redirect the CVS-backed 
> errata document to the new repo.)

I can ask if our QA would be interested in contributing.

> Personally, I think putting errata in a separate file - as opposed to putting 
> changes directly into [1] - is mostly "make work" and fails the "principle of 
> least surprise". However, I think the consortium's various processes preclude 
> us from doing what I consider is "the right thing".

The best way would be to ensure TR reflects what is broadly implemented. If 
that does not work out due to process reasons, then a visible note at the top 
pointing to the authoritative spec would be the second best option. That 
failing, the errata.



>> [1]http://www.w3.org/TR/webstorage/
>> [2]http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/html5/webstorage/Overview.html

Reply via email to